Advertisement

Scripting a distance-learning university course: Do students benefit from net-based scripted collaboration?

  • Joerg M. Haake
  • Hans-Rüdiger Pfister
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This study reports findings from an experimental field study of scripted collaboration for net-based learning in the context of a one-semester university course on operating systems. In scripted collaboration, activities of learners are coordinated and guided according to particular rules, implemented via respective tools in the learning environment. Forty-two distributed groups of three students collaborated on five successive assignments employing the virtual learning environment CURE. Three collaborative tasks—brainstorming, clustering, and essay writing—were implemented as scripts with dedicated tools guiding the net-based collaborative process. Half of the groups collaborated via scripted task versions, and, as a control, half of the groups performed the tasks in a non-scripted manner. No general advantage of scripting was found concerning acquisition of knowledge; nor was overscripting observed. Collaborative scripting appears to be neither generally advantageous nor disadvantageous, but highly contingent on the particular content and task under consideration. Results suggest that scripting might be slightly more supportive in more complex tasks such as essay writing, in contrast to undemanding tasks such as brainstorming.

Keywords

Computer-supported collaborative learning Net-based learning Scripted collaboration 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the German Research Council (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG) under research grant HA 3130/2-1.

Thanks go to Till Schümmer and Sven Laaks for building and maintaining the system, and to Anja Haake and Lihong Ma for supporting and assessing learning groups.

References

  1. Bromme, R., Hesse, F. W., & Spada, H. (Eds.). (2005). Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Buder, J., & Bodemer, D. (2008). Supporting controversial CSCL discussions with augmented group awareness tools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(2), 123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cakir, M., Zemel, A., & Stahl, G. (2009). The joint organization of interaction within a multimodal CSCL medium. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(2), 115–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carmien, S., Kollar, I., Fischer, G., & Fischer, F. (2007). The interplay of internal and external scripts. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 303–326). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carver, S. M. (2006). Assessing for deeper understanding. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 205–221). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2007). Applying multilevel modelling to content analysis data: Methodological issues in the study of role assignment in asynchronous discussion groups. Learning and Instruction, 17, 436–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.Google Scholar
  8. Dillenbourg, P., & Traum, D. (2006). Sharing solutions: Persistence and grounding in multimodal collaborative problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 121–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dillenbourg, P., & Jerman, P. (2007). Designing integrative scripts. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 275–301). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dillenbourg, P., & Tchounikine, P. (2007). Flexibility in macro-scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dillenbourg, P., & Hong, F. (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Mandl, H., & Haake, J. M. (Eds.). (2007a). Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Haake, J. M., & Mandl, H. (2007b). Perspectives on collaboration scripts. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, J. M. Haake, & H. Mandl (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 1–10). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Greenberg, S., & Roseman, M. (2003). Using a room metaphor to ease transitions in groupware. In M. Ackermann, V. Pipek, & V. Wulf (Eds.), Beyond knowledge management: Sharing expertise (pp. 203–248). Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  15. Haake, J. M., Haake, A., Schümmer, T., Bourimi, M., & Landgraf, B. (2004a). End-user controlled group formation and access rights management in a shared workspace system. In Proceedings of the ACM CSCW’2004, November 6-10, 2004 (pp. 554–563). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  16. Haake, J. M., Schümmer, T., Haake, A., Bourimi, M., & Landgraf, B. (2004b). Supporting flexible collaborative distance learning in the CURE platform. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (CD-ROM), January 5–8, 2004. IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  17. Haake, J. M., & Pfister, H.-R. (2007). Flexible scripting in net-based learning groups. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 155–175). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hesse, F. W. (2007). Being told to do something or just being aware of something? An alternative approach to scripting in CSCL. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 91–98). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoppe, H. U., Ogata, H., & Soller, A. (Eds.). (2007). The role of technology in CSCL. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Isaksen, S. G., & Gaulin, J. P. (2005). A reexamination of brainstorming research: Implications for research and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 315–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jonassen, D. H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. (1993). Structural knowledge: Techniques for representing, conveying and acquiring structural knowledge. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Jucks, R., Paechter, M., & Tatar, D. G. (2003). Learning and collaboration in online discourses. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research, & Practice, 4, 117–146.Google Scholar
  23. King, A. (2007). Scripting collaborative learning processes: A cognitive perspective. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 13–37). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kittleson, J. M., & Southerland, S. A. (2004). The role of discourse in group knowledge construction: A case study of engineering students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 267–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., Häkkinen, P., et al. (2007). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 211–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts—a conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 159–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 335–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Martinez, A., Dimitriadis, Y., Gomez-Sanchez, E., Rubia-Avi, B., Jorrin-Abellan, I., & Marcos, J. A. (2006). Studying participation networks in collaboration using mixed methods. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 383–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Michinov, N. (2005). Improving productivity and creativity in online groups through social comparison process: New evidence for asynchronous electronic brainstorming. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept Maps™ as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. O’Donnell, A. M., & Dansereau, D. F. (1992). Scripted collaboration in student dyads: A method for analyzing and enhancing academic learning and performance. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in collaborative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 120–141). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. O’Donnell, A. M., & King, A. (Eds.). (1999). Cognitive perspectives on peer learning. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Oehl, M., & Pfister, H. R. (2010). E-collaborative knowledge construction in chat environments. In B. Ertl (Ed.), E-collaborative knowledge construction: Learning from computer-supported and virtual environments. Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  34. Pargman, T. C. (2003). Collaborating with writing tools. An instrumental perspective on the problem of computer-supported collaborative activities. Interacting with Computers, 15, 737–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Paulus, P. B., & Paulus, L. E. (1997). Implications of research on group brainstorming for gifted education. Roeper Review, 19, 225–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pfister, H.-R. (2005). How to support synchronous net-based learning discourses: Principles and perspectives. In R. Bromme, F. W. Hesse, & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication (pp. 39–57). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pfister, H.-R., & Mühlpfordt, M. (2002). Supporting discourse in a synchronous learning environment: The learning protocol approach. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Proceedings of CSCL 2002 (pp. 581–589). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. Pfister, H. R., & Oehl, M. (2009). The impact of goal focus, task type and group size on synchronous net-based collaborative learning discourses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pfister, H.-R., Mühlpfordt, M., & Müller, W. (2003). Lernprotokollunterstütztes Lernen—ein Vergleich zwischen unstrukturiertem und systemkontrolliertem diskursivem Lernen im Netz. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 211, 98–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Prain, V., & Hand, B. M. (1996). Writing for learning in secondary science: Rethinking practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 609–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). Instructional design. Theories and models (Vol. II). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  42. Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2007). Barriers to online critical discourse. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 105–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 201–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rummel, N., Spada, H., & Hauser, S. (2009). Learning to collaborate while being scripted or by observing a model. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 69–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2007). Scripting by assigning roles: Does it improve knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 225–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schooneboom, J. (2008). The effect of a script and a structured interface in grounding discussions. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 327–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stahl, G. (2006). Analyzing and designing the group cognition experience. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 15, 157–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–425). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 421–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stoyanova, N., & Kommers, P. (2002). Concept mapping as a medium of shared cognition in computer-supported collaborative problem solving. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13, 111–133.Google Scholar
  51. Strijbos, J.-W., Martens, R. L., & Jochems, W. (2004). Designing for interaction: Six steps to designing computer-supported group-based learning. Computers & Education, 42, 403–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 315–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tchounikine, P. (2008). Operationalising macro-scripts in CSCL technological settings. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 193–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. van Gennip, N. A. E., Segers, M. S. R., & Tillema, H. H. (2009). Peer assessment for learning from a social perspective: The influence of interpersonal variables and structural features. Educational Research Review, 4(1), 41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wallace, D. S., West, S. W. C., Ware, A., & Dansereau, D. F. (1998). The effect of knowledge maps that incorporate Gestalt principles on learning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 67, 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Weinberger, A., Reiserer, M., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Facilitating collaborative knowledge construction in computer-mediated learning environments with cooperation scripts. In R. Bromme, F. W. Hesse, & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication (pp. 15–37). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2007). Scripting argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported learning environments. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 191–211). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wessner, M., & Pfister, H.-R. (2007). Points of cooperation: Integrating cooperative learning into web-based courses. In H. U. Hoppe, H. Ogata, & A. Soller (Eds.), The role of technology in CSCL (pp. 21–46). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Yu, F. Y., Liu, Y.-H., & Chan, T.-W. (2005). A web-based learning system for question-posing and peer assessment. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 42(4), 337–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ziegler, R., Diehl, M., & Zijlstra, G. (2000). Idea production in nominal and virtual groups: Does computer-mediated communication improve group brainstorming? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3, 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceFernUniversität in HagenHagenGermany
  2. 2.Leuphana Universität LüneburgLüneburgGermany

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options